Lolita Misrepresented, Lolita Reclaimed: Disclosing the Doubles
Author(s): Elizabeth Patnoe
Source: College Literature, Vol. 22, No. 2 (Jun., 1995), pp. 81-104
Published by: College Literature
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25112188
Accessed: 29/10/2009 13:26
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=colllit.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
College Literature is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to College Literature.
http://www.jstor.org
Lolita Misrepresented,
Lolita Reclaimed:
the Doubles
Disclosing
ELIZABETH
PATNOE
is
There
is a doctoral
Patnoe
among
agreement,
general
who
work with
adult
professionals
that the effects
of abuse might
survivors,
in the form of low self
themselves
show
candi
those
lack
esteem,
and
sion,
of
depres
and mater
nal
of women,
female
behavior
find
ize
(in Western
that
"traits"
"neurotic"
be
women,
would
also
above,
scribe
sex-role-appropriate
women.
strong,
ing U.
women
been
en's
incidence
S.
behaviors
we
and
to character
such
as
women's
[the
dissertation,
for
those
statistic
before
is
movement]
figures
that
the
rival
the
one
in
of
shock
three
has
age
eighteen
where
the wom
abused;
is weak,
incidence
fig
concern
and social
it is
about
sexually
movement
ures
drop,
minimal.
(Goldner
viii)
and Female
"
examines
the liter
Suicide,
Reality,
impli
cations
of fictional
female
suicide
narratives.
Her
lications
include entries
theEncyclopedia
Rhetoric
pub
in
of
(forthcoming,
1995) and a medical
text
book chapter on sexual dys
function.
CULTURE
She
at
"Fiction,
ary and psychosocial
list
to pre
used
in
behavior
76)
(Jones
Where
set
seen
be
of English
Ohio State University. Her
social
culture)
the
of
many
that would
ed
the
the norms
and
in the
we
when
However,
relationships.
on
look at the research
done
ization
lecturer
Department
assertiveness,
in sexual
problems
date and
walked
up to me, and she asked
to dance. I ask her her name. In
a background
voice she said Lola,
me
L-O-L-A,
Lola,
Lo,
Lo,
Lo,
Lo,
Lo?la."
81
As a ten-year-old,
Iwas intrigued by the Kinks' song about a boy liking
a girl and then finding out something. What exactly was it? I didn't know for
at the slightest mem
sure, but I liked its sound, its ability to urge movement
to love the name "Lola," a word
that evoked
ory of its lyrics. I continued
memories
of carefree childhood
days?of
sneaking
squirt bottles on the
school bus and dancing in the backyard. But during my first reading of Lolita,
the name lost its playful allure, stopped making me want to sing along. Now
it urges
pause
as
I try
to understand
the
use
speaker's
of
"Lola"
or
"Lolita."
The Kinks'
about the doubling
of cross-dressing,
broaches
"Lola," while
issues of gender, sexuality, and interpretation,
issues that also inform any dis
cussion of Lolita, but I am interested in it for its exemplification
of the power
of
intertextuality,
of
how
one
text?Lolita?can
textualized
with another?"Lola"?such
vision
of childhood
ished, my
changed,
fueled
doublings
by Vladimir Nabokov's
be
even
inter
retroactively
in "Lola" is dimin
that my pleasure
and my understanding
of the diffuse
Lolita clarified.
* * *
Nabokov's
of her, which
in
asleep,
the
treatment
of Humbert's
Lola experiences
great pain because
we see in her crying every night after she thinks Humbert
is
scratches
she
leaves
on
Humbert's
neck
while
sex
resisting
with him, and in her escape from him and the territory of his treatment?
much of the United States. It is fitting that Lolita retreats to one of the coun
try's
borders,
to a remote
place
where,
presumably
in part
because
its
isola
tion precludes
support, she dies in childbirth. But, as
sophisticated medical
if it is not enough
that Humbert
repeatedly violates Lolita and that she dies
in the process,
it
in the novel,
the world
reincarnates her?and,
repeatedly
it
kills
her
and
her:
doubles her by co-opting,
again
violating
fragmenting,
and
again.
In 1966, The Random House
Dictionary
Unabridged
of the English
or
"Lolita" as "a girl's given name,
form of Charlotte
defined
Language
Also Loleta." By 1992, The American Heritage Dictionary
Delores.
of the
for "Lolita": "A seductive
English Language offers a very different definition
of Lolita, a novel by Vladimir
adolescent
girl. [After Lolita, the heroine
a
In
recent
of Lolita,
and exceptionally
distorted
Nabokov]."
representation
on
not
is
is
who
abducted
based
the
novel's
character
the mythicized
Lolita
and abused, who dies at the end of the book, but a "Lethal Lolita" who
attempts to murder her lover's wife. Amy Fisher has been repeatedly referred
to as "Lolita"?in
about the
for the three television movies
commercials
cover
in
in
"Lethal
Lolita," and even
story,
newspapers,
Peoples
shooting,1
on the national evening news (CBS 12-1-92). In Japan, the term "Lolita com
plex" iswidely used to refer to men's fascination with the sexuality of female
as ridiculously
to perpetuate
childlike.
the portrayal of women
youth?and
the
Lolita
charac
Maureen Corrigan of Georgetown
also
distorted
University
82
College
Literature
ter when,
in a National Public Radio editorial, she equated one of Madonna's
in the book Sex with Lolita. There, in another kind of doubling,
characters
little girl in drop-bottom
Madonna
poses as a full-breasted
pink baby paja
as a Lolita is not
sex. What Corrigan describes
mas, who
supposedly wants
the novel's Lolita, the Lolita who
tries to call her mother
from the inn, who
scratches
cries
who
Humbert,
every
night,
and
who
finally
as
escapes?just
is not the same Lolita that Vanity Fair calls "the only convincing
my
love story of our century" (Vintage 1989 cover). In "Time Has Been Kind to
Lolita 30 Years Later," Erica Jong says, "She has, in fact, defeat
the Nymphet:
never Lolita's enemy;
it was
ed time?her
(47), but time was
enemy"
Lolita
one
Humbert's,
he
imposed
on
her.
And
time's
time?con
occupants?not
to reincarnate Lolita only to batter her into their own self-validating
to be anything but kind to her.
construction,
didn't
the Lolita myth evolve in a way that more accurately reflects
Why
isn't the definition of "Lolita" "amolested
Nabokov's
Lolita? Why
adolescent
girl" instead of a "seductive" one? The answer seems relatively clear, but its
tinue
consequences
are
complex.
This
misreading
is so
and
persistent
pervasive
it is enabled and perpetuated
and intra
intertextually, extratextually,
as Wayne
of Lolita because,
textually. The text itself promotes misreadings
is one of the first to note, Humbert's
Booth
skillful rhetoric and Nabokov's
narrative technique make
it difficult to locate both Humbert's
unreliability
to
and Nabokov's
moral position
the text offers evidence
(389-91). While
it is so subtle that many readers overlook
indict Humbert,
its critique of the
in and purveyed
illustrated
misogyny
by the rest of the text. Perhaps
Nabokov
such signals in order to merge
minimized
the novel's
form and
characterization
with his attempt to illustrate and thematize what happens
an allegedly charming, clearly powerful
when
his egocen
character wreaks
because
tricity
on
a weaker
one.
Whatever
Nabokov's
rationale
for
providing
such
subdued messages
in support of Lolita, they are often lost in an atmosphere
that interprets and presents her oppositionally,
and these antagonistic mes
narratives that
diachronic
sages are compounded
by a host of cross-cultural,
and succeed
the notion
that femaleness,
Lolita, texts that purvey
precede
femininity, and female sexuality are desirable, but dangerous?even
deadly.2
the muted, violated Lolita, our misogynistic
Thus, instead of embracing
culture created and reified a violating Lolita. Itmade her as contrary to birth
it made her lethal. Linda Kauffman
giving and nurturing as possible:
says,
"Lolita is as much
the object consumed by Humbert as she is the product of
her culture. And if she is 'hooked,' he is the one who turns her into a hook
er" (l60). Similarly, throughout
the years Lolita has become
the product of
our culture beyond
the book's pages, where
she has been made a murder
ess by characters
far more powerful
than Humbert.
And these mythical
a misogyny
machineries
of evil Lolita narratives perpetuate
that imposes
on
some
abnormal
and
females
developmentally
sexuality
simultaneously
Elizabeth
Patnoe
83
punishes
all females
fault
ty and
on
for any sexuality.
females,
they
us
deem
By
this sexual
imposing
unnatural,
evil
for
responsibili
any
having
sexual
ifwe
are young, doubly deviant, however developmentally
appro
ity, and,
our
is.3 Ultimately,
all females are caught in a culture that
priate
sexuality
are or are supposed
to be both com
them into characters who
bifurcates
and
asexual
and
lethal,
passionate
hypersexual.
With so many co-opted
in our culture, readers
Lolita myths circulating
come to Lolita inundated with a hegemonic
reading of evil Lolit# and bad
female sexuality, an overdetermined
reading that then imposes itself upon its
own text. The Lolita Story and its discourse
an ongoing
and
have become
in ways
that validate male
revealing cultural narrative, a myth appropriated
letting some people avoid the conse
sexuality and punish female sexuality,
quences of their desires as they impose those desires on others. Thus, anoth
er source of the misreadings
is extratextual
of Lolita is the reader, who
or
he or she
is
text
because
the
he
she
of
intertextual
outside
because
Lolita,
of Lolita,
the narratives and images that bolster the misreadings
lives between
in these larger influences of cul
and intratextual as he or she, submerged
that they
tures and intertextuality,
them to Lolita so thoroughly
brings
a
text.
of
the
Lolita
for
that
real
reader,
become,
part
This dual existence of one textual Lolita and another, very different, co
in and around
of the doubling
Lolita is just one example
opted, mythical
what many
in
of
and
violations
which
results
Lolita,
fragmentations,
splits,
or
of
what
many people witness,
vicariously,
personally
people experience
in
the
The
cultural
and
know.
cleaving and appro
believe,
systems complicit
a
the dou
of
that
of
Lolita
also
fuel
promotes
machinery
doubling
priation
bling
of
readers,
molestation
students,
survivors,
female
the
and
sexuality,
the
critics have addressed
in general. While
of women
roles and perception
some of their notions
character doubling of Humbert
and Quilty, and while
iswith a whole
are related to the doublings
that I explore, my concern
sys
an
various
within
tem of doubling
and with the
it,
pegs
doubling
expansive
associated with both the mythic and the textual Lolitas, with the division and
the
of the public and private selves, the spoken and the silenced,
doubling
a
or
is
or
often
what
the
real?with
and
represented
imagined
perceived
that
of
destructive,
system
doubling
institutionally-condoned
oppressive,
occurs in Lolita and that informs and is informed by it.4
Given a cultural context that both distorts and feeds upon Lolita, teach
in these other
ers must contend with
that occurs
the neglected
doubling
and
reflects on larger cultural pressures
realms and with how the book
and
sexual
of
The
entrenched
women,
Lolita,
processes.
misreadings
molestation
are marked
by
inter-
and
extratextual
sources
that
become
intra
ide
insidious
textual. Very personal
readings are influenced by sweeping,
con
come
not
inherent
from
"do
Lolita
Booth
any
says
misreadings
ologies.
author and
between
dition of the novel or from any natural incompatibility
84
College
Literature
himself from a
reader. They come from the reader's inability to dissociate
to him with all of the seductive
vicious center of consciousness
presented
of skilful rhetoric" (390). But Lolita readers must also under
self-justification
is at the center of a cultural consciousness
that encourages mis
stand what
readings of Lolita. Once readers have some sense about how their readings
are,
at
least
in part,
predetermined,
they
can
confront
more
intimate
sources
And then,
of misreadings,
their own interpretive systems and assumptions.
to Lolit?s covert, intratextual mes
readers will be more
receptive
perhaps
to our under
but that are essential
sages that are frequently overlooked
our
seem
in
It
culture.
the
it
functions
that the most
of
would
way
standing
or
to hegemonic
to
resistance?whether
effective
readings
challenging
them?would
be met and take place in the "self realm of the extratextual,
in the most personal, private, and sometimes painful realms of readings and
of texts. But ifwe can understand
the part of the extratextual
realm that influ
ences
of
the personal
the
then
extratextual,
part
perhaps we will better
access and understand
the interplay of our culture, ourselves,
and the texts
that
our
become
texts.
To this end, Iwould
like to see those of us who have been excluded
from the hegemonic
the character, reclaim the
readings of Lolita resuscitate
with and around it so we can at least
book, and insist upon our experiences
to resist some of the cultural
begin to counter the Lolita myth distortions,
of female sexuality. For me, this means processing
several of
appropriations
my experiences with Lolita-, as a young listener of "Lola," a nurse for children
and teenagers, a student reader of Lolita, and with the text itself?particular
the
ly, here, with an excerpt from The Enchanted Hunters chapter inwhich
is so complete
and so manipulative
that it results in a dou
double-voicing
too
ble-drama
like the double-dramas
rarely seen in literature but very much
lives: the narration of an event that is
often played out in girls' and women's
as "love-making" and seduction, but that can only be
described
countlessly
interpreted
as
rape.5
PEOPLE
Lolita myths have influenced many responses
The resounding
to Lolita.
Critics focus on the book's aesthetics
and artistry, discuss
it as an American
travelogue,
view
Humbert
with
compassion,
as
truly
contrite,
a
tragic
hero.
and they do not contend
Though diverse, these readings remain hegemonic,
with gender issues, do not attempt to understand why and how the same text
can be so pleasurable
for some and so traumatic for others. While many of
us celebrate the personal nature of literature, criticism has historically denied
For a long time women's
the subjective.
voices
in general, but especially
voices of anger and pain, have not been sounded or heard. Despite
the critical history of reader response and personal criticism, for the most part
our discipline
even the slightest hints of personal perceptions
still disallows
women's
Elizabeth
Patnoe
85
in scholarly work: we
and reactions
some
of
most
the
certain
squelch
emotive
results
stories
that
of
are expected
ever
even
engagement
to engage
we
are
as we
try
but
told,
intimately with
to
also
expected
to articulate
some
of the implications of that very same engagement. We have been limited to
those discussions
and reactions deemed
appropriate by the reigning cultural
in this movement
is the critical history of
powers.
Particularly noticeable
Lolita,
sider
in which
the
and
readers
book's
pleasures,
critics
almost
almost
embrace
always
skirt
always
what
they
its pains?Lolita's
con
pains,
as
as the readerly traumas associated with this novel.
addressed because
read
Perhaps these issues have not been adequately
ers who do not have such disturbing desires cannot imagine, cannot bear or
or others, and so deny or minimize
bare the thought of them in themselves
such imaginings. One man I know seemed
located in Humbert's
staunchly
narrative audience, defending
him, insisting he does not rape Lolita, and call
I said that, while
seductress."
she had had sex, it
ing her an "experienced
was with her peer, which
suggests at least the chance for a more develop
well
mentally
normal,
mutually-empowered
He
experience.
said,
"If my
daughter
ever fooled around at that age," and stopped short. I replied, "If your daugh
ter were
Lolita, you'd call it rape." He shook his head, exhaled
audibly
through
his
nose,
and
said,
"Touch?.
I see
Now
what
you
mean."
brilliant language.
Many other men praise the book's artistry, Nabokov's
said he loved the book?his
its artistry.61 asked
One associate
favorite?for
from a book with this content. He
him how he could feel so much pleasure
a
not
is
For
"It's
But
this
book
book."
said,
"just a book" for everyone.
just
some
it
their
of
what
has
many people
aspect
represents
reality,
happened
to them or their loved ones?or
what they fear might happen. But this man
seemed so seduced by the book's form that in every visible way he trivial
ized Lolita's experience
and dismissed
the trauma many readers experience
with this text.
Iwitnessed
how this book is not "just a book" for some people when,
some women
in a booth one afternoon,
and I began discussing
the
nestled
as we discussed
implications of Lolita. Three of us were especially passionate
its narrative
strategy,
its characterization,
our
responses.
Our
fourth
colleague
nodded
her head, but remained quiet. About fifteen minutes
occasionally
into our talk, she abruptly rose to go home. The closest of her friends among
us walked
her to her car and upon her return told us why our colleague had
she was a child, her father woke
her, carried her from her bed
gone: when
to the bathroom, made her bend forward over the tub, and raped her. When
in her mouth. With blood drip
she cried out, her father stuffed a washcloth
she
ping down her legs, he forced her to perform fellatio on him. When
refused to swallow his semen, he squeezed
her nostrils shut until she did.
When he was finished, he picked her up by the elbows, held her face to the
86
College
Literature
a pretty
such
it, this
you are
pussy."
to you? Do you
Is this shocking
ing
did this to you? Because
and said, "Do you know why Daddy
mirror,
trauma
person's
has
feel that in my writing
been
it and your
It has?through
re-enacted?
her,
read
through
and for me, and for you. And I imposed this trauma on you, thrust it into
If you feel upset, then perhaps you can
your consent.
your eyes without
our
and how others might respond to texts
how
fourth
felt
imagine
colleague
that catapult them into chasms of deep, secret pains?includ
and discussions
less vivid and texts far less shocking
than this one.7
ing discussions
a few critics have expressed
While
for Lolita's trau
charged sympathy
on Lolita, and
trauma
most
to
confront
the
Humbert
inflicts
ma,8
neglect
none contend with the trauma the book inflicts on readers. Indeed, if critics
in notes 13, 16, and 17), they
trauma at all (excepting
those noted
discuss
trauma. Critics range from judging him harshly yet with
focus on Humbert's
to strongly sympathizing with and even identifying with
much compassion,9
and identifying with him to the
him,10 to "rooting" him on, sympathizing
and sexual.11 Concurrent with this is
point of sharing his pleasures?artistic
to those who view
the critical move
that seems to offer frightening pleasure
examinations
Lolita with derision.12 While
of the book that focus on more
our understanding
of theme and structure can enhance
typical questions
as
some
about
countless
critics focus on the
text,
parts of this complicated
its trauma, they also neglect many of its readers
book's pleasure and neglect
and enable the violator's pleasure,
reinforce it, invite it to continue without
to
in
addition
confrontation.
that purvey
Thus,
particular critical comments
com
the Lolita myth, the collectivity of Lolita criticism in some way becomes
in
the
aesthetization
child
of
molestation
individual
peo
perpetrated by
plied
ple and by the culture at large.13
And
not
by
with
contending
readers'
or with
Lolita's
trauma
in the
class
room, the criticism, or the culture, the trauma is at once both trivialized and
intensified for individual readers because
forum.
they suffer it alone, without
have lived what Elsa Jones calls a "double
People who have been molested
of being
consequences
reality": "In my view one of the major negative
abused as a child lies in the confusion generated
for the child between what
to be true and what her world
she knows
to be true" (37).
acknowledges
Similarly, some readers of this text also live a double reality in the classroom,
a
place
where
personal,
and authoritatively
often
explored,
texts
disturbing
even
are
routinely,
matter-of-factly,
enforced.
PEDAGOGY
On
saying
the way
to
himself,
to class, one of my
"Yes,
yes.
.
.
Humbert."14 The first hour or more
like published ones, about the puns,
Elizabeth
Patnoe
.
peers
But,
told me
then
I'm
that as he
a male,
so
read he kept
I understand
of class consisted of discussions
much
the time of narration, the time of action,
87
narrative
the
to
audience?about
man
One
Lolita.
read
the
what
except
everything
frotteurism
Humbert
scene
couch
aloud,
really
without
does
any
apparent sense of how the reading may have affected the discussion
dynam
ics. In the second hour, the discussion,
to
moved
quiet and controlled,
course
come
a
to
true
in
the
of
his
Humbert
had
under
narration,
whether,
for what he had done. Some men said they did
standing of and repentance
not condone Humbert?and
then talked at length about how we should have
how
for
he
him,
compassion
really comes to love Lolita, how he rehabilitates
some
I asked?with
and wishes
he had left her alone early on. Eventually
an
measure
of incredulousness?whether
else
had
had
anyone
unmitigated
reaction
Humbert.
against
to be in
I appeared
remained quiet, including
had been molested
by her
it once,
voiced
Humbert,
so
men?and
in the class
the minority.
Many of the women
a usually expressive
one who
later told me she
father. One woman
had a strong reaction against
later that she felt silenced by the
then told me
herself.
silenced
Another
a
woman,
on
focused
writer,
use of language. Another
Humbert
Nabokov's
argued that understanding
would help us understand
and deal with our own desires.15 After class, some
of us talked about feeling judged because others implied that we had insuf
for Humbert,
that we violated the text when we
ficient compassion
suggested
to the "desired" authorial or
could not subjugate our real reader experiences
narrative
reader
experiences.16
this text seemed
Discussing
ic
in which
the
to exacerbate
much
teacher?however
he
the typical classroom
or
she
may
try
to
the authority,
such that almost
independently
ty?remains
is often assumed
teacher did or did not do, in this class, what
resented
result,
as
those
the
"male"
students
became
perspective
with
painful
the
dominant
experiences?students
share
dynam
authori
of what
this
to be or rep
perspective.
in vital
who,
As
a
ways,
the implications of this book?felt
might have been most able to understand
in
humane
and were disempowered.
academia,
reading this
Sitting there,
two years,
a
account
is
enslaved
for
how
of
young girl
sexually
prolonged
there
seemed
no
room
for
these
responses,
these
lives.
After
class,
when
one
told me that I cheated the text, that my reaction was
of my male associates
to yell.17 But I stayed
"too moral," that it silenced him, then I really wanted
for
embarrassed
silent,
saying anything against Humbert,
feeling
implosively
in class for
even as I felt angry?with
Humbert
and with some of the men
being
unable
to permit,
accept,
even
tolerate
our
responses,
responses
that
in content and articulation. And yet, if,
rational and reasonable
before
the age of eighteen
has
reports, "one in three women
exacer
been sexually abused" (viii), can texts like Lolita be taught without
of mostly
female students?
the trauma of relatively
large numbers
bating
another silencing, disempowering
Without
dealing with what often becomes
in a host of discourses?
presence
I considered
as Goldner
88
College
Literature
to the
This class resounded with student splitting, as students responded
one
text one way outside
within
the room and another way within
it,
way
and
ourselves
another
way
I am
without.
certain
that
some
students
split
as
they felt and denied or hid their trauma. Other discussants might have dou
as they made public declarations
bled as they felt and denied their pleasure,
against Humbert's behavior while growing privately pleased by it.And, while
in my attempt to contend
I am working
female perspective
from a generally
and textually-induced
larger issues of pedagogically-
with
more
know
about
how
Lolita
and
other
texts
produce
Iwant
trauma,
and
exacerbate
to
male
some male
trauma. Might
readers of Lolita feel bullied? Misrepresented?
arousal? By their own
by other men's
Wronged?
Might some be distressed
arousal? Might some fear that all women will think that all men want to vio
and girls about whom
late girls? Might they fear for the women
they care?
Fear that their reactions might betray their peers who argue relentlessly on
Humbert's behalf? And how might men who have been sexually abused feel,
men who often have no forum inwhich
to process their experiences,
whose
trauma is silenced perhaps more
than any other? Think of how they must
have doubled.18
is perhaps one of the most public arenas for traumatic
The classroom
a flurry of attention to various sorts of harassment
amidst
and
Yet,
readings.
not
and
methods
have
violence,
yet
pedagogical
theory
sufficiently
trauma transmitted through and perpetuated
addressed personal
by perfect
texts. It is not difficult to see why
and canonized
ly academic discussions
some
want
might
to overlook
or
repress
traumatic
reactions.
Perhaps
silence
is a site, source, and sign of strength for some people. And there is the risk
of classroom chaos, of cascades of shocking personal
revelations, of danger
ous pseudo-therapy
sessions. But if teachers assign traumatic texts, it seems
are
they
obligated
to
and
acknowledge
at
least
reasonably
try
to
accommo
to them?if
not entirely, then in part; if not on an
date students' responses
individual basis, then within a general and perhaps
less threatening discus
sion of what responses
such texts "might" evoke. In the process of trying to
contend with trauma, there is always the possibility
of exacerbating
it, but
must be greater if teachers impose and then ignore
the risk of exacerbation
the trauma, if they banish it to some secret solitude or silence. Silence should
be
an
option
in, not
a function
of,
such
discussions.
We may not love Lolita. Many of the women
I have talked with about it
cannot
have very negative
about
and
it,
many
re-read, write about,
feelings
or teach it. But the book remains required reading in some classrooms,
and
were
it never again assigned, we would
still have to contend with
its reso
nances and the culture that supports them. I understand why some people
their externally
silent reactions to these
prefer to maintain
see
our
others
that
that
is essential,
responses
hope
voicing
cannot see that, beneath Humbert's
confront
those who
Elizabeth
Patnoe
issues, but I also
that it is time to
sexist
dominant
89
of Lolita, there is a kid molded
imaginings
a
tasy,
that
fantasy
every
to fulfill a role in a destructive
in one
becomes,
day
or
way
fan
a very
another,
real
for countless
children. It is time for us to grapple with the couch
nightmare
to
redress
ourselves.
While
scenes,
contending with Lolita and other Lolita
we
texts,
can
our
advance
of
understanding
broader
issues
of
and
classroom
trauma in general?and
we
of pedagogically-imposed
readerly trauma?and
can contend with the whole
set of Lolita myths and discourses. We can dis
cuss the politics of representation,
and influence,
and
response,
ingestion,
we
can
the
expose
relations
complex
of
and
sex,
power,
are
that
gender
rep
resented in and sometimes perpetuated
the general and
by these texts. While
critical communities
have repressed
the ideological
contestation
imbued in
in
this book, have turned it into a site of gross cultural appropriation?and
that may neither have surprised nor been condoned
Nabokov?we
ways
by
need to renew the contestation. As we do this, we will take an important step
in refusing a cultural milieu
that denies,
that violates and punishes women,
the female personal?especially
and fragments
trauma?while
trivializes,
the male personal?especially
advancing
hegemonically
pleasure.
TEXTS
can believe
One of the primary debates
about Lolita is whether we
Humbert's
claims about Lolita. Humbert acknowledges
and reveals his unreli
ability throughout the book, and, having been frank and honest, he expects us
two important
to believe him when he claims reliability. But I cannot believe
claims of which he tries to convince us: that Lolita seduces him the first time
they have intercourse and that he truly comes to love Lolita as a person.19
sex act with Lolita, he
recounts his first non-frotteuristic
When Humbert
insists that Lolita seduces him, but a variety of textual signals suggest that
and
Lolita
Iwill
are
Humbert
not
eye-to-eye
seeing
event.
the
throughout
let me
in detail,
this passage
explicate
Because
it for you here:
reproduce
that months,
of the jury! I had
thought
perhaps
to reveal myself
to Dolores
I dared
but by
before
Haze;
elapse
I am
lovers.
wide
and by six fifteen we were
awake,
technically
me.
was
to tell you
it
who
she
seduced
very
strange:
something
gentlewomen
Frigid
years, would
six she was
going
I feigned handsome profiled
she be shocked at finding me
Upon hearing her first morning yawn,
sleep. I just did not know what to do. Would
by
her
side,
and
not
in some
spare
Ramsdale?to
sportive
beloved
rolled
bone.
mother's
I felt
note
chortling
over
to my
side,
a mediocre
I gave
caressed
rassment,
90
her
lassie.
her
had
her
of
and
and we
hair,
some
rather
on
me,
to
and
I knew
her
hers,
her warm
brown
imitation
gently
comical
collect
she demand
bedside?back
eyes
she
bed? Would
lock herself up in the bathroom? Would
of waking
Her
kissed.
refinements
when
camp?
she
eyes
hair
her
clothes
and
to be taken at once to
had
But
my
been
Lo was
at
uttered
last
laughing.
came
a
that
She
collar
my
against
I gently
up. We
lay quietly.
to my
delirious
embar
kiss,
which
of flutter
and probe
College
Literature
me
made
conclude
No
Lesbian.
that
she
Charlie
had
could
boy
learned
been
at an
coached
that. As
her
have
taught
she drew
age by a little
early
if to see whether
I
me.
Her
surveyed
was
dissolution
my
near. All at once,
of rough
she
(the sign of the nymphet!),
glee
a while
not sepa
to my
ear?but
for quite
could
put her mouth
my mind
rate
into words
the hot
and
and
thunder
of her whisper,
she
laughed,
sense
the hair off her face, and tried again,
and gradually
brushed
the odd
had
fill and
my
were
cheekbones
of
living
missible,
did not
flushed,
a burst
with
new,
mad
came
me
as
know
over
game
features
she
she
you,"
from
when
start."
of
Lolita's
juvenile
where
world,
she was
what
"romantic
slosh"
now
persisted,
or
kneeling
"abnormal.")
above
me,
never
"you
it
did
a kid?"
quite
not
mores,
hopelessly
depraved.
unknown
furtive world,
truthfully.
said
"Okay,"
Lolita,
"here
is where
a detailed
learned
account
readers with
my
a trace of modesty
it to say that not
I
did
formed
modern
co-edu
young
girl whom
hardly
so forth had
the campfire
racket
and
and
utterly
bore
Suffice
presumption.
in this beautiful
perceive
cation,
either
she
I shall
However,
dream
I realized
I took time out by nuzzling
her a little. "Lay
again.
a twangy
said with
her brown
whine,
removing
hastily
curious
the way
she considered?and
very
lips. (It was
a long
caresses
on the mouth
or
kisses
time?all
except
I answered
"Never,"
we
glistened,
started
shoulder
my
so for
kept
doing
the stark act of love
"You mean,"
you were
new
and
away
underlip
was
per
everything
I answered
I
suggesting.
she and Charlie
"You mean
had played.
you have
into a stare of disgusted
twisted
"You
incredulity.
what
never?"
have
lesson,
her
full
in a brand
never??"?her
off, will
the
She
saw
the
to adults.
stark
What
act merely
adults
did
as part of a youngster's
for purposes
of procre
by little Lo in an ener
no business
ation was
of hers. My
life was
handled
manner
as if it were
an insensate
getic, matter-of-fact
gadget
to impress me with
with me. While
the world
of tough
eager
not quite
a kid's
for certain
between
prepared
discrepancies
unconnected
she was
kids,
life and mine.
Pride
alone
her from giving
up; for, in my
strange
prevented
predicament,
I feigned
her have
and had
her way?at
least while
supreme
stupidity
are irrelevant
could
still bear
it. But really
I am not concerned
these
matters;
can
with
"sex" at all. Anybody
so-called
those
of animal
elements
imagine
ity. A greater
nymphets.
endeavor
lures me
on:
(part I, end of chapter
to fix once
for all
the perilous
magic
I
of
29)
We can read this passage
in at least two very different ways, believing
Humbert's
claim that Lolita seduces him and directs him to the act of inter
him by imagining Lolita's perspective,
and especially
course, or challenging
not
to
him
that
Lolita
does
direct
her.
by considering
penetrate
Throughout
his report, Humbert wants us to believe
that Lolita knows exactly what she
that Lolita is in control: he tells us
does, that she directs him to intercourse,
that he acts stupid; that she is a knowledgeable
and experienced
teacher
a perilous and depraved
who has participated
in a furtive world,
nymphet;
that she is the one who makes
with him. But Humbert
also
presumptions
Elizabeth
Patnoe
91
in the doubling of this text and of child molestation
participates
by doubling
to be another. From the onset,
himself, by being one thing and pretending
with his address,
of the jury!" he implies that he will
"Frigid gentlewomen
rhetoric directed at women,
but, throughout this passage,
employ evidentiary
is riddled with
and ambiguity,
his language
indirection
and he never
the
defines
the "stark act" so central to the scene.20 Throughout
absolutely
narration as well as the time of action, Humbert doubles: he "feigns" sleep
to be a powerless
and "imitates" waking; he pretends
student while he is the
that
his
"dissolution" was near, that "for a while
teacher; he says
powerful
the hot thunder of her whisper"; he
[his] mind could not separate into words
has the sense that he is in a "mad new dream world, where
everything was
us
was
he
he
tells
that
"realized
what
but he
she
suggesting,"
permissible";
tells Lolita that he "did not know what game she and Charlie had played";
he feigns "supreme stupidity" and ignores Lolita's difficulties during the act;
he says he is not concerned with "sex" at all, but we know that compels him.
us to believe
is
while wanting
he is disempowered,
Clearly, Humbert,
voice
of
the
and
the
this
and
he
passage
dialogue
empowered,
manipulates
in his effort to convince us that he is seduced, while
there is covert evidence
that this is not the case, that Lolita does not have intercourse inmind, but an
adolescent
petting
game.
First, Humbert
says Lolita seduces him, but he begins the caressing, and
he does not indicate who initiates the first kiss. Shortly thereafter he says, "As
I had my fill and learned the lesson, she drew away and
if to see whether
interpretation of Lolita's look, and
surveyed me." Ifwe can rely on Humbert's
if she is indeed drawing away to see if he has learned his lesson, then it
seems logical to infer that Lolita thinks she has finished giving the lesson,
that she has given Humbert what she thinks should be his fill after the first
a lesson about kissing,
kiss. Furthermore,
if Lolita intends to teach Humbert
initiate the lesson. If she does initiate it?and
if
she would
then presumably
doesn't
she seduces him?then
Humbert
Humbert wants us to believe
why
tell us she initiates it? By not identifying who kisses whom
first, Humbert
that he kisses her. We
also cannot be sure of
enables
the possibility
Humbert's
away from
interpretation of Lolita's look and of why she moves
in
from
Humbert
him. Could she draw?or
surprise? Could her
pull?away
flush be of fear?
this passage, Humbert
says he realizes what Lolita suggests
Throughout
to" his ear, saying that she seduces him and imply
she "put her mouth
to culminate
in intercourse.
that she wants
ing that she initiates foreplay
to
him to
convince
that
Lolita
is
the
seduces
if
Humbert's
jury
goal
Again,
like thunder, why doesn't he con
resounds
intercourse and if her whisper
she suggests? When
tell the jury what Lolita says instead of what
clusively
Humbert
says he realizes what Lolita's suggesting, his sly wording whispers
two possible
could mean
that Lolita directly
First, Humbert
interpretations.
when
92
College
Literature
invites him to participate
in something?that
she says, for instance,
"Let's
could also indi
make out" or "Should we make out?" But Humbert's wording
not Lolita?makes
cate that he?and
the presumptions,
that he infers what
Lolita might be implying, not what she is actually stating.
Even though itwould be easier for Humbert
ifwe believed his claim that
the activities that lead to intercourse,
the col
Lolita initiates and orchestrates
and Humbert's
lective effect of Lolita's perspective
commentary
suggests that
her lesson, her goal, her game, her "stark act" is not to have intercourse, but
only to kiss and perhaps fondle. Humbert, of course, admits to feigning igno
rance throughout this scene, and even how he speaks this to her suggests kiss
ing and petting games, not intercourse: "I answered I did not know what game
she and Charlie had played." For me, game evokes various pre-teen kissing
at the very most, some kind of fondling activity. Again, Humbert
games?or,
strategically does not specify what Lolita says. Instead, he reports her as say
rein
ing "you never did itwhen you were a kid?" (emphasis added), which
forces the implication that Lolita is referring to a common kids' game. Perhaps
Humbert really never played the game as a kid, but surely Lolita does not think
that sexual intercourse is common among youngsters?while
itwould be quite
likely that she would believe kissing or petting games are.
in this passage
One key to identifying
is the phrase
the indeterminacy
uses twice. First, he says that Lolita thinks that
"stark act," which Humbert
"all caresses except kisses on the mouth or the stark act of love [are] either
'romantic
slosh'
or
'abnormal.'"
Later
he
says,
"she
saw
the
stark
act
merely
as part of a youngster's
to adults. What adults did
furtive world, unknown
for purposes
of procreation was no business
of hers." While,
after the first
reference,
stark
act
may
possibly?though
not
necessarily?mean
inter
even
this possibility by suggesting
course, the second reference undermines
in kids' petting games. This would
further that Lolita plans to participate
fur
to
ther explain why, after suggesting
is
she
learn
that
had
he
them,
surprised
not participated
in them when he was young. Humbert
facilitates this alter
native reading by emphasizing
the kids' context of the game when
he lists
this "young girl" of "modern co-education,
the influences
upon
juvenile
the
[and] the campfire racket." While Humbert wants us to believe
mores,
to have intercourse with him, he also exaggerates
"depraved" Lolita wants
typical "juvenile mores" and campfire experiences.
Lolita has had intercourse with Charlie or not, Lolita
Finally, whether
no clear indication
to have
that she wants
it with him.
gives Humbert
even Humbert
Somewhere
this: once again, he says, "She saw the
recognizes
as part of a youngster's
stark act merely
to adults.
furtive world, unknown
What adults did for purposes of procreation was no business of hers."21 One
of my associates
intercourse
interprets these lines to mean that Lolita believes
is something
about which
know and adults do not care. If so,
youngsters
an adult, to intercourse? My
then why would Lolita want to seduce Humbert,
Elizabeth
Patnoe
93
claims
colleague
ence.
if she
But,
it is to impress Humbert
"it"
believes
with
is a common
her knowledge
children's
and experi
then
experience,
why
she think her experience would
impress someone who also had been
and who,
she pr?sumes,
had had similar childhood
experiences?
of the line "What adults did for purposes of pro
Finally, the double-voicing
creation was no business of hers" is remarkably telling of Humbert's manip
or not one accepts my associate's
ulative voice. Whether
reading that Lolita
is common
in childhood
and that she does not care
intercourse
believes
subvert his primary inter
about how adults procreate, Humbert's own words
would
a kid
resonates
and their double-voicing
pretation,
about kids, not what kids say about adults.
For me, these lines and the following ones
cannot
Lolita
knows
man?and
passage
conceive,
yet
is not interested
is charged with possibilities:
that she
life was
My
an
it were
me
cannot
with
handled
by
insensate
the world
between
little
gadget
of
tough
a kid's
Lo
in an
unconnected
loudly:
strongly
kids,
she was
life
and mine.
suggest
with
say
that Humbert
him. The
matter-of-fact
me.
adults
a
accommodate
comfortably
in intercourse
energetic,
with
this is what
manner
following
as
if
to impress
eager
not quite
certain
for
dis
prepared
Pride
alone
her
from
prevented
While
crepancies
I feigned
supreme
up; for, in my
strange
giving
predicament,
it.
I could
still bear
her way?at
least while
had her have
stupidity
and
twist?the
twist of what he
ultimate power
lines describe Humbert's
narrates
in
his
his
he
actions
does
and
of
how
attempt to convince
actually
to her, and that what
himself and us that Lolita is in control, that he succumbs
he does here is on some level acceptable. When Humbert
says he feigns
can
"still bear it,"
"her
have
her
has
while
he
and
way"
"supreme stupidity"
he might mean that he lets her fondle him until he ejaculates (and they never
to
that she wants
have intercourse) or, what I think he wants us to believe,
have intercourse, and that, even though Lolita is not prepared for intercourse
with an adult, though this causes her pain, her pride compels her to contin
ue having
I propose,
that
intercourse until Humbert
however,
ejaculates.
of her
Lolita's "stark act" could well be the more
component
sophisticated
two approved
activities?a
petting game that she thinks adults do not play.
we
If
read these same lines within another possible context of Lolita as a pre
These
is quite possible
that they
teen?one
by the text?it
covertly corroborated
indicate that Lolita wants to impress him with this unnamed activity from "the
thrice?and
that she is
that "kids" is used
of tough kids"?note
world
a
children
not
of
between
kind
for
different
discrepancy
prepared
absolutely
versus
act"
"stark
of
the
Lolita's
and adults:
Humbert's,
petting
perspective
games
versus
child-adult
intercourse.
These same lines also allow for another very different but related read
the
and experience,
and, considered
together,
ing of Lolita's perspective
uses
in
twice
the
end
other.
Humbert
each
enhance
alternative
life
readings
94
College
Literature
more
the dominant,
the excerpt. Within
reading,
figurative
life is a
was
Lo
in an
As
line
for
life
handled
little
the
such,
"My
by
penis.
metaphor
of
energetic,
matter-of-fact
manner
as
if
it were
an
insensate
gadget
uncon
a description
with me"
of Lolita's genital
of
suggests
fondling
was
not
certain
and
for
"she
between
Humbert,
quite prepared
discrepancies
a kid's life and mine" may refer to size differences
in children and adults.
narrative trend to be
what
However,
if, in a kind of reversal of Humbert's
we
covers
and
his
back
and consider
indirect,
pull
strategically symbolic
life
more
these
lines
this
when
Within
that,
suggest
literally.
reading,
they pet,
Lolita obliviously
future life, that she makes
alters the direction of Humbert's
out with him as if their behavior
is in no way going to affect Humbert's
future. Of course, while Humbert's
syntax places the blame for these changes
on Lolita, it is his molestation
of her that changes both of their futures.
its literal definition based in
the second use of life, considering
Furthermore,
reiterates that a youngster may be satisfied with
length of time (not anatomy),
of life and
petting games while an adult may not be. Merging both meanings
both meanings
of stark act, and considering
that harsh, blunt, and grim are
for stark {Webster and American Heritage),
this passage
under
synonyms
scores that Lolita is at once not prepared for Humbert's
size or his ejaculato
that her pride compels her to continue petting,
ry stamina during fondling,
that Humbert goes along with her game, feigning stupidity about her limita
tions and her intentions, and, when
her way?the
way of a kid's life, either
no longer enough for him, in an abuse of both
the kissing or the fondling?is
her body and her "pride," he, without
her consent, directs the stark activity
as
his way: he penetrates
he
her, and,
rapes her, feigns ignorance about her
to
while
he
thrusts
pain
ejaculation.
nected
This novel, this experience,
this social issue, is fraught with doubling,
and this passage, with its internal doublings
that are both contradictory
and
a
into
in
two
doubles
itself
that
enables
different
way
mutually
enhancing,
one
the critically dominant,
Lolita
that assumes
readings:
unchallenged
to intercourse, and an overlooked
seduces Humbert
reading that Lolita pro
not intercourse. This
poses kissing and petting games with Humbert?but
relative indeterminacy
frustrates some readers of the novel
(though most
seem to unproblematically
accept the hegemonic
reading), and certainly my
attempt to account for the latter reading will frustrate some of my readers. Of
is inherently and intentionally
It is
indeterminate.
course, Humbert's passage
to
He
out
doubled.
claims
leave
the
details
because
conveniently
they are
"irrelevant matters," but he erases them because
they are, indeed, quite rel
evant. Since he wants
to acquit himself of the accusation of rape, wants
to
convince us that in this scene Lolita seduces him to intercourse, he must nar
rate in gaps, must not tell us who
initiates certain
must
be
discreet.
guage,
self-protectively
Elizabeth
Patnoe
acts, must
use elusive
lan
95
in some ways
While
this formalist reading may seem to redeem the text
to the violent seduction
and Nabokov
it identifies textual challenges
because
am
to
I
not
the text, or readers
fantasy,
ready
entirely exculpate Nabokov,
like Lionel Trilling. Perhaps Nabokov wanted me to see the "real" kid in this
excerpt?or
not.
perhaps
I see
where
Certainly,
the
others
child,
raped
imag
ine a seductive
I cannot know for certain how Nabokov
little girl. While
to be read, in it, and perhaps with more
intended this passage
force than
else in the novel, he narratively plies two perspectives.
This inter
anywhere
this doubling,
Humbert's
claims and Lolita's liabili
weaving,
problematizes
does this by testing the limits of what we now familiarly
ty?and Nabokov
know as Mikhail Bakhtin's notion of heteroglossia:
tions
but
ble-voiced
It serves
discourse.
two different
simultaneously
is speaking,
who
and
the
course
while
are
intentions:
the direct
intentions
refracted
intention
of
the
two meanings
and two
voices,
are dialogically
two voices
interrelated,
other.
(324)
there
these
about
to express
authorial
inten
serving
language,
a
Such
constitutes
of
dou
type
speech
special
two speakers
at the same
time and expresses
in another's
speech
in a refracted
way.
another's
each
two
of
author.
the
character
In such
And
expressions.
dis
all
the
itwere?know
they?as
so insistent upon his own view while
This passage, with Humbert
revealing
such contrary yet valid, viable variations of Lolita's perspective,
exemplifies
an extreme kind of personal double voicing.
In the course of this narration,
content?a
the doubled
and enacts a doubled
form both produces
doubled
narrative
the
action?and
are
consequences
that
this
interconnected
yet
gap
a colliding double drama: two peo
reflects and produces
ing double-voicing
interact?and
for
intentions,
ple, with two related yet relatively oppositional
one the outcome
is seduction, while for Lolita, the very same
the empowered
the
interaction,
Some
very
Humbert
teach
same
insist
readers
how
to
result
words,
that, from
have
in rape.
the onset
intercourse,
that
of
this scene,
she
initiates
Lolita wants
and
to
maneuvers
an
even it describes
I disagree with
this interpretation,
penetration. While
to or even appears
to direct her
essential double drama: if Lolita consents
she does so with Humbert's powerful direc
painful penetration
by Humbert,
she is in control, he controls her?he
tor's hand. As he leads her to believe
to
to
gets power by appearing
give up power, exerts his will by appearing
even
as
Lolita
within
this
of
his
will.
reading
pseudo-direc
Finally,
relinquish
to activities
that he maneuvers
and for which
tor, he directs her to consent
he
is problematic,
And this "consent"
she is not prepared.
first,
to intercourse, and because,
it is not clear that Lolita does consent
it becomes
for
of this situation,
the power-differential
impossible
knows
because
within
Lolita?or
for
any
to consent
pen,
a variety
96
of
twelve-year-old?truly
to consent
to what
is about
as an informed,
implementable
to
person who
empowered
independent,
to
We know
choose.
from
which
options
College
hap
has
the
Literature
that
gaming with Lolita, of the power-differential
implications of Humbert's
is doubly dramatized,
and we know that Humbert's manipulations
result in
an extended bondage
and violation of Lolita during which his will?his
life?
to penetrate
continues
of
Regardless
coercion
Humbert's
of
This
child?rape.
that
drama
and
prevail.
the indeterminacies
Lolita,
ambiguity
the
of
and
an
and
of perception
reveals
concurrently
of this passage,
exertion
conceals
all readings
adult's
describe
desires
sexual
double
interpretation?this
various
truths?is
a
upon
contin
both
when Humbert
ued and undermined
reports that Lolita says with a smile,
"You revolting creature. Iwas a daisy-fresh
girl, and look what you've done
to me. I ought to call the police and tell them you raped me. Oh you, dirty,
the man who believes
that Lolita's
dirty old man." Are we to entirely believe
of pain is "reproduced" for his benefit? Does
she really
second expression
a brute? Humbert's manipulation
of rape into
smile when
she calls Humbert
sex involves an honest portrayal of some of his liabilities, which
consensual
makes
it easier for him to misrepresent
other liabilities, easier for him to dou
ble.
Yet
Nabokov
Humbert's
reveals
as
role
screenwriter,
director,
and
inter
the drama when Humbert
says a few chapters after
preter?as
perverter?of
was
I am the therapist?
uThe
the
Charlie
Holmes;
rape scene,
narrating
rapist
a matter of nice spacing in the way of distinction"
added).
(137, emphasis
to reveal Humbert's
continues
Nabokov
doubling?and
unreliability?
and debunks his insis
through language that exposes his ongoing pedophilia
tence that he comes to love Lolita for her own sake.22 He says of his meet
ing the pregnant, married Dolly:
. . . there she was with
her ruined
my darling.
torturing
. . . hands
. . .
. . . and
worn.
{my Lolita/),
hopelessly
...
. . . that I loved her more
seen or imag
I knew
I had ever
than anything
. . . She was
. . . dead
ined on earth.
the
leaf echo
of the nymphet
I
only
I had
looks
had
not
no
intention
and
her
rolled myself
such cries
upon with
that echo
alone
that Iworshipped.
the world
know
. . . still mine.
delta
of
adult
be
tainted
mere
sight
voice,
my
how
...
and
much
No
matter,
torn?even
I loved
even
then
. . but thank God
in the past.
itwas
Iwill
shout my poor
truth. I insist
this Lolita, pale
and polluted.
Lolita,
. . . her
delicate
lovely young
velvety
...
my
if
Iwould
of your dear wan
face, at the mere
Lolita.
added)
(253, emphasis
go mad
sound
with
of your
tenderness
raucous
at the
young
Even as Humbert proclaims his love for this Lolita, as he describes
a young
woman
on
ravished by the experiences
he has imposed
her, key words
a
his narrative
reveal his continued
obsession
with possessing
throughout
with
in
her
for
the
sexual
attraction
he
found
her
young Lolita,
possessing
to think about
that he still finds in other youth. He continues
youth?and
other girls sexually both in the time of narration and the time of action at the
end of the novel: in the time of action, he looks lewdly at young girls play
of the time of narration, he thinks
ing near Lolita's house. At the beginning
Elizabeth
Patnoe
97
in prison. And at the end of his narration, he
about the girls in the catalogue
writes this passage,
saturated with quiet clues about what still obsesses
him,
with clues that make clear that he does not love Lolita spiritually, nor as an
and self-serving,
and that
individual, that his feelings for her are pathological
he remains fixated on what he cannot have?a
fantasy world and object that
tries to disguise beneath
he unsuccessfully
the discourse of age and wear.
Humbert's
of
and
disregard for Lolita is reflected even in
objectification
how he addresses
and refers to her: throughout most of the time of action
and the time of narration, Humbert calls her Lolita, while everyone
else calls
he sees the pregnant Dolly, he
her by the name she prefers, Dolly. When
in her the "echo of the
calls her by her preferred name until he recognizes
the
envisions
of
and
delta"
his Lolita. Finally, just
young,
"velvety
nymphet"
before the book ends, he refers to Dolly as "my little one. Lolita girl" (259,
are "my Lolita" (281). And yet, even
added), and his last words
emphasis
with these clues, in the same way that Dolly's will, character, and voice are
throughout the novel, her life, fate, and image con
supplanted by Humbert's
and
tinue to be supplanted,
and used by a world
that embraces
distorted,
own
its
version
of
Lolita.
Humbert's
imaginary
punishes
* * *
"Well, you drink champagne
and
it tastes
just like cherry cola, C-O-L-A,
cola."
this "Lola" line intertextually and ironically reflects the duality
Suddenly,
of Lolita?the
between
and the manipulated
doubled discrepancies
mergings
of an adult's world with a child's. It reflects how, for some readers, Lolita is
in champagne?yet,
traumatic and depressing?like
for many
the alcohol
it
in
caffeine
cola.
is
and
the
others,
stimulating?like
pleasurable
Whether
this book remains part of the canon or not, its repercussions
itmight be simpler to slap the book
will reverberate for a long time. While
Instead of retreating from its trauma, I
shut, this will not silence its echoes.
believe
and
we?students
teachers,
women
and
confront
men?should
its
its personal and cultural implica
and challenges,
should address
messages
reactions to the
tions. While
that there may be gender-specific
recognizing
Lolita myths and the book, we must not assume them. We need to consider
at its best or its
whether
these passages and others in Lolita are heteroglossia
own
our
to the fore, to reclaim our
to bring
voices
worst,
backgrounded
selves^?our
voices,
our
interpretations,
our
stories.
As
we
do
this,
we
can
that pre
and romanticize molestation,
confront
the myths
that aestheticize
sexualize kids, that make pedophilia
pretty. And we can explore why, with
so evident, any per
of forced and coerced sexual behavior
the devastations
treatment
son succumbs
to or perpetrates
it. Virginia Goldner
says adequate
of sexual abuse "must do justice to the double injury: the injury of a partic
and the social injustice of the
ular person by a particular person or people,
98
College
Literature
because
fact of her age or sex" (ix;
of the impersonal
exploitation
we
the
As
double
and
understand
added).
injuries, and disclose
emphasis
in and around this book?the
of the Lolita
undo the doublings
doubling
to the text, of students, of survivors,
myth, of female sexuality, of responses
as we share our differences with this text and oth
and of the text itself?and
victim's
ers,
we
perhaps
of
ings,
will
textual
better
traumas,
nature
the
understand
others
of
and
of
of
reading,
read
sharing
ourselves.23
of
NOTES
a 22 percent
Lolita"
"earned
^ne,
"Long Island
Story,
of Love: The
in revenues"
and $364 million
audience
share
1994).
{People8
Aug.
was
that Nabokov
with
the
2Alfred
unfamiliar
332)
{Annotated
reports
Appel
Casualties
The Blue Angel (directed by Josef von Sternberg, 1930), in which
movie
cabaret
ruins
dancer,
a professor
life of
the
about
speculate
the 1955
the possibility
of Lolita.
publication
influenced
version
of
by the movie
in North
American
beautiful
typically
wrote
the
3This
for
screenplay
uality
"nymphets"
And
the doubling
continues
be essential?thus,
natural
and
and
but
her,
this film,
the Lolita myth
its 1959
notions
Lolita, which
impacted
women
and models.
also may
of what
Lola-Lola, a
and
have
been
is pheno
Nabokov
while
However,
makes
them,
by
Lolita's
so why
unnatural.
patriarchy's
alleged
nymphet
but
common?);
not
(and
own
to
it is easy
remake,
it is significantly
from
the novel.
different
is all the more
ironic since
the alleged
sexuality
because
rare?thus,
in love with
falls
between
intertextuality
readers
Lolita
female
is what
abnormal
of
the movie,
of
punishment
of
who
sex
desirable.
definition,
is supposed
quality
it is also
to
to be
supposed
4For a discussion of the Humbert/Quilty and the good/evil double, see Appel
("Lolita" 114, 131, 134) and Frosch (135-36). Also see Maddox (80), Alexandrov (161),
and
Tamir-Ghez
(80).
tive with Quilty
notes
Haegert
unwanted
critics
"double"
who
Centerwall,
Critics
who
discuss
include Appel
who
claim
was
that Nabokov
them
(779),
among
that Nabokov
Fowler
of
we
few
'seduced'
is not
gin"
the effect
121);
violated"
the unvirginal
'the fragile
child of
(132);
sex
to be
emotions
acts
and
Elizabeth
who
Rubinstein,
that
nymphets
between
Lolita
Packman,
Patnoe
who
(14);
says,
is not
Andrew
are
and
says
"Lolita's
depraved
Humbert
that by
an
joined
by
(475),
in the process,
confound
but cursorily
defend
explicitly
into
language
is the easier
who
Frosch,
a child
behavior
sorceresses"
as "conjugal
the end of part
says,
says,
vamp,
who
own.
See:
is himself
Lolita
too,
"Then,
...
is not
Humbert's
supports
one
"Humbert
who
(364);
visits"
their
to accept when
seems
to have very
and who
innocent,
Field,
Levine
often,
depravity
little nymphet"
(330);
a feminine
novel'
but
by
are
(468).
pedophile"
seduces
and Robert
Humbert,
"confuse
with
innocence"
virginity
[Humbert's]
says,
"Perhaps
a Lolita who
deals with
(107).
to exorcise
that Lolita
who
Trilling,
learn that he
or perspec
desire
(47), and Rampton
in part attempting
and
Pifer.
They
the "misguided"
which
rejects
arguments
but critics usually
is a seductress,
claim
that Lolita
and
the issue of virginity
with
the question
of rape. Some
her and
then
Humbert's
sympathetically
incorporate
Lionel
readers'
a "closet
was
argues
states
"it is doubtful"
5Kauffman
the doubling
("Lolita" 123), Packman
a vir
assertion
to
to the
who
refers
Appel,
and
"seduction"
("Lolita"
"the
initial
striptease
of
the
99
has
nymphet
been
emphasize
Others
believe
Lolita
seduces
responsibility,
including
who
claim
that Humbert
Phelan
(Worlds
164).
(59).
completed"
Humbert's
love with
confounds
is a novel
uLolita
says,
child
hate
and moral
love
about
and
but
the claim
rapes Lolita go on to subvert
that "each act" of Humbert's
intercourse
says
as "loving
describes
Humbert
children"
(221).
those
Typically,
love and rape. Gullette
by confounding
with
is "a form of rape" (223),
Lolita
but
Maddox
Humbert
perfection
in two of
death
with
when
she
imperfection
their most
forms:
pathological
in a text,"
"can be dis
them
we
when
"encounter
rape and murder,"
which,
but
for a desire
for moral
and aesthetic
convincing
metaphors
perfection"
to Humbert's
to rape" Lolita,
Tamir-Ghez
refers
not
but says he does
"design
to "the first time he makes
her because
"she complies,"
and
then refers
love to
turbing
(67).
rape
Lolita"
(72
6Of
another
then
7, 80).
of
doubling:
same mimetic
the
of
aspects
he undermines
synthetic
mimetically,
engage
mimetically
Reading
ic, and
People,
thematic
our
Plots
Reading
See
the
to participate
that those who
engagement?such
largely
criticized
for not appreciating
its art. See Phelan's
for definitions
sustained,
graphic
detailed
into ripping,
Linda Kauffman.
notes
5,
critics
Also
who
who
Appel,
emphasizes
and horror;
who
Bullock,
crime
who
says Humbert's
(221);
man who
every
with whom
the
average
claims
that
who
Green,
Jong, who
is driven
the
mimet
synthetic,
Lolita's
his
violations,
own
molestations.
Robert
Levine,
their
McNeely,
for Humbert
sympathy
Humbert's
and
Dana
include
victimization,
entrapment,
. . . Hum
for other
"abandons
says Lolita
is aging
"and wanting
villain
can
easily
in Lolita
(46-47);
"The
Above
Tamir-Ghez,
who
and
that
who
calls
"wins
us
enterprises
different
ways
pain,
men";
a sex
to have
nevertheless
is time
identify"
perverse
sexually
in five or six
tragic;
romantic,
pathetic,
in them.
thize with
[Humbert]
see Trevor
of
(70), and Phelan (Worlds 162).
the
says
by desire"
reader
tiful,
of
descriptions
memories
17.
16, and
discuss
readers'
10See
Gullette,
ual
life"
of
applications
13,
Brand (19), Rampton (110), Tamir-Ghez
despair,
and
of narrative.
readers
see
notably,
Giblett.
Rodney
of
9Some
to enact
skill
and
carefully
to foreground
mimetic
are
Lolita
with
some
throw
8Most
this admiration,
and he uses his artistic
a playful
to represent
to construct
tragedy,
to
make
the
artificial
and real,
story
reality,
so much
as he asks
us
the work
that, even
components
Nabokov
avoids
7While
words
wants
Nabokov
kind
deny
the
n.
course,
is
"Humbert
Humbert
over"
(71,
a
. . .
"man
82);
and
. . . are made
we
beau
funny,
are made
to sympa
are made
(365).
they
impressive"
come
to condone
is Trilling's
that "we have
virtually
. . We
.
it presents.
into conniving
been
seduced
in the violation,
have
the violation
we
our fantasies
we
to accept what
to be rather revolt
have permitted
know
because
"we
who
Others
include
almost
ourselves
find
(14).
says,
wishing
ing"
Appel,
at The Enchanted
his agonizing
Hunters"
well
Lolita
Humbert
first night with
during
nMost
notorious
even
may
we
fear
experience
And,
finally,
of the scene
or
love for a slangy
"agonizing
twelve-year
scene
"we
claims
that
the couch
(63); Butler,
during
at the moment
of detection.
of orgasm,
for him
the possibility
Then,
a corresponding
relief
that the scene
has passed
without
incident.
who
126); Bader,
is a delectable
taboo"
("Lolita"
old
at
100
least
all,
comment
says
Humbert's
who
we
even
view
let ourselves
be swayed
may
retrospective
by Humbert's
as an artistic
notes
who
that
"What
(433);
Tamir-Ghez,
triumph"
enraged
most
readers
and critics was
the fact that they found
themselves
disquieted
College
Literature
. . .
even
the feelings
of Humbert
Humbert.
accepting,
[T]hey
sharing,
we
with
him"
and
themselves
and
who
(65);
Toker,
says
caught
identify
identifying
to give up,
"a pleasure
with
who
that few readers wish
Humbert,
pursues
sympathize
treatment
receive
in various
all the scornful
that such a pleasure
aesthetic
may
despite
theories"
(202-03).
unwittingly
"was plainly
who
12See Trilling,
"it is likely
that any reader
and
says
situation
as
and
less
'understandable'"
and
foul-tempered.
(9-10);
and
less
Lolita
Appel:
Sub-Teen
Bader,
being
conventional
able
of
Lolita
up
discover
an
It is poetic
looms
the note
of moral
that he
and more
outrage"
to see the
comes
and more
as human
little
creature,
selfish,
even worse
for a creature
...
him
leaves
hard,
than
and
vulgar,
she
is"
to comment
on the Teen
opportunity
. . .
that Lolita
should
seduce
Humbert.
ideal
justice
who
and
to muster
will
. . .horrible,
is a dreadful
Nabokov
us all" ("Lolita"
above
121);
and faults her for
love-making"
is a "little girl as vulgar,
flirtatious,
energetic,
as the American
commercial
environment
threateningly
to Humbert's
shrilly
Lolita
"responds
(69); Brand:
innocent
seemingly
and
"She
"affords
Tyranny.
is a Baby
Snooks
who
says Lolita
Lolita
abstract
(14); Parker:
. . . Lolita
not
yet manipulative
high
itself (19); Jong: Lolita is "an impossible object: a banal little girl" (46); Fowler: Lolita
of
childhood
one
Richard
that has
the discourse
and
Schiller
in a shack
living
been
labelled
and
have
'Freudianism'
the
love
"Both the cult
exacerbat
.
an adult
in longing
the guilt
feels
for a child.
sexually
has heightened
the sense
in
of potential
this
exploitation
longing.
at any rate, is that in the Western
sex is patently
world
another
game
not
outcome,
cannot
Mrs.
the disgusting Quilty, not Humbert" (174); and Gullette:
if they have
ed,
. .And
feminism
. .The
as a semiliterate
at home
is "quite
of her lifewas
play
13Kauffman
created,
with
children"
is one
ing this aestheticizing
sates
for those
crimes;
.
(218).
critics
of
the only
of molestation:
I have
found
"Aesthetic
bliss
it is a dead
instead
end,
to contest
truly
is not
consolation
meager
I am
what
a criterion
call
that
for
compen
the murder
of
Lolita's childhood" (163).
there
l4While
dents
as evidenced
15This
culation,"
seem
to be
in published
critics,
in my notes.
and
seems
response
when
"the female
some
there
a dramatic
and
important
of what
manifestation
is co-opted
reader
to Lolita,
reactions
gender-specific
are also clear
into
in stu
both
to them,
exceptions
"immas
calls
Fetterley
in an experience
participation
from which she is explicitly excluded; she is asked to identify with a selfhood that
defines itself in opposition to her; she is required to identify against herself (xii). This
it not only
immasculation
because
to
the reader
response
surpasses
requires
as she accepts
a male
herself
in taking
but she,
this stance,
against
identify
position,
to another,
in stark contrast
also positions
herself
and opposition
vulner
particularly
notes
female.
that Lolita
it
"feminist"
able,
Kauffman,
citing
Fetterley,
gives
(though,
reader's
seems
is more
readers
"the choice
of either
here)
appropriate
participating
or
'immasculation'
aesthetic
of
their
bliss,
by endorsing
demonstrating
as
as
and
that
well
humorlessness
and
aesthetic
for
"physical
frigidity"
puissance
or annihilation
Humbert
anaesthesia
for Lolita"
immasculation
(155). While
requires
"female"
in their
has
own
the norm
been
challenge
l6For
Lolita's
Elizabeth
in Lolita
criticism,
Kauffman,
and Giblett
McNeely,
have
to
begun
it.
an articulation
pain
is so
Patnoe
acutely,
of
these
though
terms,
see
rarely,
Rabinowitz.
clarified,
One
that
would
critics
would
think
that,
have
since
better
101
to that very
large
not of pleasure.
attended
and
of
group
Most
trauma,
readers
who
critics?male
of pain
the experience
on the pleasurable
identify with
and female?focus
and covertly)
from a male
overtly
perspective,
and
O'Connor,
Butler,
("Lolita"),
Appel
Jong,
see
the
and
Tamir
experience,
problematize
reading
Rampton
see
the
"male"
Ghez.
for those who
confront
And,
directly
experience,
reading
and Giblett.
Levine,
Kauffman,
McNeely,
Rhetoric
for one of the earliest
and most
notable
discus
17See Booth's
of Fiction
of
experience
reading,
(both
especially
Packman,
including:
For those who
Fowler.
Toker*,
Field,
on Lolita's
see
For discussions
the book's
focussed
morality.
perspective,
is not about
who
and Kauffman,
"Lolita
love but about
Levine,
incest,
says,
so consis
is a betrayal
of love. How
have
critics managed
of trust, a violation
. . . the
to
to
in
aim
is
with
incest
the
novel?
here
show
confuse
love
how
My
tently
one
in the text obliterates
of the father's
the daughter's"
(152). And
body
inscription
sions
about
McNeely,
which
aims
is to show
how
of my
contexts:
in the larger culture,
discusses
18While Fetterley
the
as
15),
"immasculation"
are
expected
who
violates
that
are
they
they
are
of
readers
as
5 on
seductress,
unvirginal
is probably
her" (472).
night"
inside
act"
stark
actually
to the
ing,
organ
although
size and
21There
(as we
ation
during
ation,
participating
their
individual
and
Lolita.
factor
in most
who
Levine,
not
and
and
the
of
"stark
"life"
(Worlds
comment,
some
abandons
that
and
after
Lolita
is the
complicated?its
the "honeymoon
torn
"had
something
on "the
respectively,
these
what
think
they
clarifying
"life" refers
act" without
us
enables
Are
Humbert
explored
says Lolita's
pain
because
Humbert
Tamir-Ghez
not.
to
is in opposition
to represent
their gender?
assumptions
alone
without
discrepancies"
indicates
that he believes
intercourse
to
to sex organ,
refers
their mean
problematizing
as
them
infer that he defines
164).
an
between
intercourse
and procre
distinction
important
to
Humbert
is
lack of
and
Lolita's
fate),
perhaps
referring
we would
to
be remiss
for producing
children.
However,
is, of course,
see in Lolita's
intercourse
of
or not.
critics'
noted?let
men
standard
that
22 on whether
note
that
are
reactions,
a perspective
it is often
assumed
to love
when
when
not
be "immasculated,"
in
may
from which
they are explicit
in experiences
in which
they
with
identify
have
men
themselves
against
occurs
For my
with
whether
procreation,
Iwill
the
emphasize
purposes,
conception
first step
occurs
in procre
intercourse.
22Critics
are
apotheosis"
102
given
Toker,
discrepancies"
his
interpretation
intercourse
apotheosis"
ly contrived
claims
and
who
in or preparedness
the association
interest
discount
into
though
seductress
are
"certain
text,
"standard"
in experiences
to her menarche,
due
Phelan,
"certain
as
few
Levine
the
and
are.
even
those
Among
but,
to
asked
Lolita
Lolita
the male
Individual
co-opted
truly comes
is a pivotal
but few
pedophilia
20This passage
specifics.
being
included
individuals
and
with
identify
individuals.
as
Lolita
note
19See
to
into participating
to be
themselves
his
assumed
co-opted
but by
ly excluded,
are assumed
male
and
in several
"daughter's"
in its criticism.
and
the
obliterates
the actual
women
in which
the ways
identify
a related
move
but very different
note
(see
text
"father's"
the classroom,
offer
and
a range of opinions
or whether
his
love
apologia"
genuine.
or is no
on whether
778),
(Haegert
those who
Among
longer
a pedophile
although
believe
or
Humbert
is "a virtuoso
confession
most
critics
"moral
an artful
performance:
that Humbert's
argue
a
Humbert
both
true
experiences
experiences
are Alexandrov,
Appel
College
true
"moral
("Lolita"),
Literature
Bader,
Bullock,
Field,
and O'Connor.
Toker,
of
love
still functions
Kauffman
pletely
women"
Fowler,
Butler
as
with
the mental
Morton,
Maddox,
this view,
arguing
novel's
modulation"
that
Tamir-Ghez,
Pifer,
"Humbert's
n.
(436
expression
and
22, 434),
that he is "com
in love with
Lolita,"
with
random
incessantly
projects
girls and
cite as signs of Humbert's
love are "signs
incest
of father-daughter
(161).
typical
is "far from
that Humbert
argues
obsessed
Levine,
Gullette,
challenges
one
of
the
being
image he
critics usually
and that what
(159),
of overpowering
love but of domination"
to James
And with
Nils
fourth
23For our
Phelan,
Samuels,
gratitude
colleague.
our
and Marlene
for
discussions
about
Lolita
and for their
provocative
Longenecker
to this paper.
keen
responses
not
WORKS CITED
Princeton:
Otherworld.
Jr. The Annotated
1991. xi-xvii.
Alfred,
-.
E. Nabokov's
Vladimir
Alexandrov,
Appel,
Lolita.
By
Vladimir
Vintage,
"Lolita: The
Nabokov:
Dembo.
1967.
Bader,
of Parody."
Springboard
U of Wisconsin
Madison:
P,
Land:
Crystal
Artifice
57-81.
P, 1972.
Julia.
California
Bakhtin,
M. M.
"Discourse
M.
Bakhtin.
Trans.
U.
Austin:
of Austin
Dana.
"The
Nabokov's
1981.
Interaction
Lolita."
H.
Richard
Bullock,
Emerson
His
Novels.
English
The Dialogic
Michael
and
New
Work.
York:
L. S.
Ed.
Four
Imagination:
Ed.
Holquist.
U
Berkelely:
Essays
Michael
of
byM.
Holquist.
259-422.
of Aestheticism
Modern
Steven
H.
"Humbert
"Lolita
and
and
American
in
Culture
Consumer
Studies
14-21.
17.2 (1987):
Language
the Character,
Humbert
the Writer:
Artifice,
Art in Lolita." Philological
Butler,
and
ed.
C. The Rhetoric of Fiction. 2nd ed. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1983.
Booth, Wayne
Brand,
P,
The Man
1991.
UP,
Rev.
106-43.
in Nabokov's
in the Novel."
Carl
Princeton
Nabokov.
Reality,
and
Quarterly 63.2 (1984): 187-204.
the Modem
Experience
of Beauty."
in the Novel
Studies
18.4 (1986): 427-40.
Centerwall,
Studies
S.
in Literature
Maureen.
Corrigan,
Ohio.
All
21 Sept.
in Plain
Nabokov
and
"Hiding
Sight:
and Language
468-84.
32.3 (1990):
National
Public
Considered.
Radio.
Things
Resisting
Indiana
UP,
Bloomington:
Andrew.
Nabokov:
Fowler,
Douglas.
Thomas
Frosch,
Rivers
Giblett,
and
Green,
Reader:
A Feminist
28.3 (1982).
Gullette, Margaret Morganroth.
Haegert,
Novel
John.
Columbus,
to American
Approach
His
1967.
Little, Brown,
Life in Art. Boston:
Nabokov.
Ithaca: Cornell
1974.
UP,
Reading
R. "Parody
and Authenticity
in Lolita." Nabokov's
Fifth
Charles
Austin:
U of Texas
Nicol.
127-43.
P, 1982.
"Writing
Sexuality,
Reading
vii-x.
Introdution.
Jones
Virginia.
Martin.
and
Nabokov:
The
"Tolstoy
Novel."
WCBE,
17.3
"Artist
(1984):
in Exile:
Fiction.
1978.
Rodney.
Goldner,
Texas
Pedophilia."
1992.
The
Judith.
Fetterley,
Field,
Brandon
Pleasure."
Paragraph
Morality
of
"The Exile of Adulthood:
Lolita."
12.3
Arc.
(1989):
The Kenyon
Pedophilia
Ed.
J. E.
229-38.
Review
in the Midlife
215-32.
The
Americanization
of Humbert
Humbert."
ELH
52.3
(1985): 777-94.
Elizabeth
Patnoe
103
Elsa.
Jones,
with
Working
1991.
Books,
Erica.
Jong,
Has
"Time
Survivors
Adult
Been
to
Kind
of Child
Sexual
the Nymphet:
Abuse.
London:
30 Years
Lolita
Karnack
Later."
Rev.
of
Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov. New York Times Book Review 5 June 1988: 3, 46-47.
Linda.
Kauffman,
Father:
Readings
Carbondale:
Kowaleski-Wallace.
The
Kinks.
in
Ed.
of Patriarchy.
Southern
Illinois
Lola
versus
Lolita.
With
James
12 Oct.
1992.
"Lola."
a Woman
Is There
Lolita:
"Framing
Feminist
New
Powerman
the Text?"
Patricia
1989.
UP,
Beth
131-52.
the Money-Go-Round.
and
the
Refiguring
and
Yaeger
Records,
Reprise
1970.
Kubrick,
Stanley.
Mason,
Peter
Winters,
Shelley
Sue
and
Sellers,
1962.
Lyon. MGM,
"Lethal Lolita." People
Robert
Levine,
T.
"'My Ultraviolet
Loss
The
Darling':
of
Childhood."
Lolita's
Modern
Fiction Studies 25.3 (1979): 471-79.
Lucy B. Nabokov's
Trevor.
"'Lo' and
Maddox,
McNeely,
in English.
Novels
Behold:
U of Georgia
Studies
Athens:
the Lolita
Solving
Riddle."
P, 1983.
in the Novel
21.S
(1989): 182-99.
Vladimir.
Nabokov,
Lolita
with
Relationship
64-77.
David.
Packman,
Missouri
P,
New
(1955).
Tiernan.
Katherine
O'Connor,
Dostoevskij."
Vladimir
York:
Nabokov:
The
Structure
the Asterisks."
"Sex?Without
Dorothy.
New
House:
Harold
Bloom.
Chelsea
York,
of Literary
Desire.
U
Columbia:
of
Major
1993.
Literary
Characters:
Lolita.
Ed.
9-10.
the
Plots:
and
Character,
Progression,
People,
Reading
Reading
U of Chicago
P, 1989.
Chicago:
of Narrative.
in Fiction.
A Theory
U of Chicago
Words:
Chicago:
of Language
James.
Interpretation
Worlds
from
-.
Nabokov's
Lolita,
Reconsidering
Eastern
(1989):
Journal33.1
European
1982.
Parker,
Phelan,
1977.
Berkeley,
"Rereading
Slavic
and
P,
1981.
Ellen.
Pifer,
"Shades
of
Love:
Intimations
Nabokov's
of
Immortality."
Kenyon
Review
ns 11.1 (1989): 75-86.
Peter
Rabinowitz,
Interpretation.
David.
Rampton,
Cambridge:
Tamir-Ghez,
Narrative
J. Before
Reading:
Ithaca: Cornell
UP,
"Lolita."
Cambridge
Nomi.
"The Art
Vladimir
UP,
of
1984.
Conventions
and
the Politics
of
1987.
Nabokov:
A
Critical
Study
of
the Novels.
101-21.
Persuasion
in Nabokov's
Lolita."
Poetics
Today
1.1/2
(1979): 65-83.
Leona.
Toker,
Trilling,
Lionel.
Nabokov:
"The
Structures.
Ithaca: Cornell
The Mystery
of Literary
Encounter
Lover: Vladimir
Nabokov's
Lolita."
Last
UP,
1989.
11.4
(1958):
9-19.
104
College
Literature